Thanks! And thanks for asking me in the first place! --Alvestrand 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulation's! You've earned the trust of the Wikipedia community, good work; and, for the future, good luck. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Words of wisdom
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.
Thanks for those kind words of guidance! :-) --Alvestrand 20:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: Copyright questions
Great questions! Garion96 replied on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Advice for admins and I will reply here. Wikipedia:Copyright problems is funny in that there are usually only one or two admins regularly working it. Right now it happens to be Garion96 and me. The advice at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins is okay, but we should probably update it with what works better in practice, which right now is strikethrough. You don't have to worry about the ones you delete because it's obvious you deleted them. If you decide to keep them, strikethrough. I have started leaving a brief reason in the edit summary when I strikethrough of why I decided not to delete it, but the best place for a complete description is probably the article talk page.
Of course, these are pretty dynamic and we just end up going with what works for the people who are working the page.
Some of the best advice I got back when I started was from User:Quadell, who used to work that page all the time. He told me that even when you can't find the source, or it's offline, sometimes it's an obvious copyvio because they added a huge chunk of "unwikified" text in one edit. When he was in doubt, he left it, which is probably good advice.
A lot of help is also needed at Category:Images with no fair use rationale, where images end up when people tag them as having no fair use rationale. They all have to be verified, deleted, and the links to the images removed from articles. Some admins will just tear through a day and delete everything that was properly tagged. For me, if I come upon an image for which it would be easy to write a fair use rationale (like an album cover) I just do it.
Any other questions come to mind, feel free to ask! --Spike Wilbury 04:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Timed Automata
Hi, I hope this was the right way to ask you a question. I am on a very tight schedule, so I beg your pardon for any mistakes. I write in reference to your message ( which I obvioulsy saw too late) about the request to delete the article on "Timed automata". I am curious now as to what your reasons might have been. If you remember them, please let me know.
-- Vaishak Belle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grokmenow (talk • contribs)
Of course I can't see the article any more.... but my main reason was that it didn't seem to have a published source that used that name for the device. It seemed like a kind of cute trick to teach kids about ways to measure events, but I didn't see any evidence from the article that it was something that had some practical application in some context, or had been described in a way that satisfied notability according to
WP:N. The reason it came to my attention was that it didn't link to any other Wikipedia article - I'm scanning through a lot of those articles, and suggesting deletion where I find serious reason to believe it doesn't satisfy the notability criteria. Hope this makes it clearer! --Alvestrand 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi! Yep, you are right .. as far as I remember the article, I did ( at that time) give niether a detailed explanation of its practical applications nor link it to other articles in the Model Checking category. Anyway, now that it has been deleted there is not much I can do about it :) except rewrite it again with proper sources and links. Cheers - Vaishak Belle
However, I realize I have still things to say. The fact that they did not contain a published source does not mean that it should have been deleted, should it? It of course should have been tagged heavily ("not enough sources", "improve quaility" etc.etc) but I still dont know if it was a good idea to have it removed. What got me to write the article was that I was on a search for some information on the timed automaton and found that there were no articles about it. So a few weeks later, once I had enough material, I thought I would go back and write a little and hope someone else would improve the quaility.
-- Vaishak Belle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grokmenow (talk • contribs)
The right place to keep an article you're working on that is still completely unreferenced is probably as a subpage of your user page. Nobody will touch a page whose name is "User:Grokmenow/Timed automata". I don't remember how long the time was from your creating the article to the prod tag being placed upon it - but it wasn't instant by any means. BTW - please use the signature function (four tildes), rather than leaving a name different from your user ID. It lessens confusion about who-said-what. --Alvestrand 13:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Will do so in the future --Grokmenow 18:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Writing articles as subpages of your userspace until they are perfect is bad.
Opinions differ - keeping articles in your userspace until they're good enough not to be deleted on sight is considered a Good Thing. See Wikipedia:Userfication. --Alvestrand 10:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed you contributed a few times to the deleted The Photon Belt and I am trying to get it resurrected and reinstated. See progress thus far on my user page. -[[User:Eep�|Eep�]] 05:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Why? It's a thoroughly dumb belief, totally irrational and wilfully disrespectful of all we know about physics. --Alvestrand 05:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links Please remember: it is more important to disambiguate correctly than to disambiguate quickly. Make sure you make the best choice; if you're not sure, leave a note on the talk page and let someone who is more knowledgeable fix it.
Probably the best would be to remove the links, or linking to Van Allen Belts.
Feel free to remove the links. The article violates
WP:CONTEXT in multiple places. I felt that the relinking was an improvement because the new targets were at least astronomical structures that were commonly called rings or belts; it's been a problem in arguing that the belief is inconsistent with reality that [[User:Eep�|Eep�]] keeps slipping between definitions - claiming that a theory proposing a "galactic superwave" supports the idea of photon belts, for instance. Pinning them to commonly-accepted terms for astronomical phenomena makes it a little harder to get away from criticism by handwaving in this fashion. --Alvestrand 06:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
We shouldn't bash "galactic superwave" to hard, it's the only scientific debunking we have.
Also, There is a RfC on Eep concerned in part with his propensity to want links to DAB's. It might be prudent to let that run it's course before starting to object to links like these.
Eep makes enemies easily, it seems. I wouldn't mind a page on "galactic superwave" - I consider that (probable) fringe science, but definitely possible to discuss in terms of science - it's not patently offensive like "photon belt". But there are more debunks than the superwave guy's - some of which are found in Eep's links that he cites in seeming *support*. Go figure. --Alvestrand 08:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you, and just you, since I know this topic is within your professional background, not because I had any expectation about what your opinion might be. I don't think soliciting the opinions of professionals violates
WP:CANVAS, although I suppose there might be a perverse sort of argument that it does (this would take the anti-elitism that Larry Sanger was concerned about a bit too far - see [1]). In any event, thanks for commenting, and I'll be careful. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
DeadBot Problem
Hey, I can't see the diff, as it lags my computer extremely badly, however I have to ask: Did you use editors notes in the format # [[Article]] - Note ? If not, thats how it reads them becuase that's how every single one was prior to update - so it only reads those. I will update the system to not use this format if necessary, but it seemed like a good system anyway. Thanks, Matt. (Note: Feel free to revert the bots edit if you want to keep the new format, and i'll update the bot. Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 23:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, I just make the lines read # [[Article]] comment - no dash. Is there any reason why the bot would want to remove anything from a line it isn't modifying for any other reason? I saw the bot adding comments to some pages in some of its other diffs - that's a Good Thing. --Alvestrand 05:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Karlson
It was a while ago but it appears I flagged it because this sentence is plagiarized verbatim: "The son of popular Irish actress Lillian O'Brien, Phil Karlson studied painting at Chicago's Art Institute." (If plagiarized sentences are enough to get bestsellers recalled due to copyright concerns, it seems that Wikipedia articles ought to be as well.) Quatloo 17:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Admin IRC channel
Hi, per your request on
this page, you've been added to the access list for the admin channel. To enter, you need to invite yourself using /msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins, then simply join the channel as normal. If you have any problems, PM me on IRC. Regards, Majorly (talk
Tirah Expedition to that page for now. I would have thought that anyone who genuinely wanted to check its notability could do so in a few seconds by the simple expedient of doing a Google search on "Tirah Expedition". Nunquam Dormio 12:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure - the criterion for "db-nn" is that the *article* doesn't assert that it's notable. Given the considerable time that had passed since the article was created, with no text except the references, I felt that it was reasonable to ask for its removal. A redirect is a very good solution! --Alvestrand 12:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
violation of copyright rules. I am not very experienced as an editor. I have been flamed by other editors who object to even the mildest tag (stub, notability, etc.), and had pages I edited vandalized. I will often "jump on the bandwagon" when other editors nominate an article for deletion. I am pleasantly surprised that you are even harsher than I am. Thank you for the input! Bearian
Charles Laughlin's biography of J. Scott Smart was published in 1994. He excerpted this material for a lengthy authoritative Wikipedia article. He also excerpted his biography for an article at Lou Genco's site: http://www.old-time.com/sights/fatman.html
Since Laughlin is the creator of all, it's not clear to me how this is a copyright violation. Pepso2 12:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. As usual, reusing the same content in multiple places is a problem. Wikipedia:Copyright problems states that "stating that you are the copyright holder of the work on the article's talk page helps, but will not likely prevent deletion." Note also that Lou Gernco's site is (c) Lou Genco, not (c) Charles Laughlin - it is impossible from the site to say whether Charles has signed over the copyright to Lou or not. Getting Charles Laughlin to send a message to permissions-en (at) wikipedia.org, preferably from an address associated with old-time.com, saying that the copyright belongs to him and he allows reuse under the GFDL should be sufficient. --Alvestrand 13:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Double sigh: Charles Laughlin here. Can you imagine the frustration of someone who spends all the hours I did in writing this article -- yes, using my own previously published material -- only to find out one day that all was for naught because some bureaucrat has decided to delete it cause it doesn't match his/her notion of what's appropriate? What you have actually succeeded in doing is alienate and lose a damned good writer, not merely out of anger, but because why bother? What I do can so easily be undone by someone else on a whim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.175.149 (talk)
Good to hear from you. Believe me, it is not on a whim, and it is not lightly done. Accusations of copyright infringement are probably the biggest danger to Wikipedia's ability to function - the day someone gets a serious settlement against the foundation on copyright infringement, the whole show is basically over. You are, as you say, reusing material published elsewhere. We need a statement on file that has some degree of traceability saying that you hold the copyright, and you're licensing the material under the GFDL. Once that's done, the article can be undeleted. Send the mail, and we can go on from there. But don't put Wikipedia in danger by asking that we not be vigilant on the copyright front - believe me, I'd MUCH rather be doing other things than copyright patrol, but I do this because it helps keep Wikipedia operational. SOMEONE's got to do it. --Alvestrand 22:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you understand that an author cannot be alienated from the copyright to his own work? I have never given anyone exclusive copyright to my writings and never will. Moreover I couldn't if I tried. This has been an issue well settled in the courts. I cannot plagiarize myself, nor can I infringe on my own copyright. I never gave Lou Genco permission to copyright my stuff, nor would he claim to hold the copyright, nor would it ever occur to Lou to try to enforce a copyright he claims for his site against one of the authors on his site. This is just all paranoid officiousness on your part. But I am not going to battle over this. I am simply going to put up a stub for Jack Smart, and hopefully it will stand your eagle-eyed scrutiny. Nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles D. Laughlin (talk • contribs)
Trying once again.... in order to give Wikipedia no trouble, we have to have SOME assurance that the person claiming to be "Charles D. Laughlin" here on Wikipedia is the same as the one who's holding the copyright on the text on Lou Genco's site. Ship the mail, and I think we'll be fine. But as long as you're not willing to SAY, in some way that is even remotely verifiable, that you own the copyright and license it under the GFDL, we can't put it up here. --Alvestrand 13:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding a timestamp. --Alvestrand 05:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Moments
Hi Alvestrand, I have up-dated the above page as you requested. It probably still needs a little work, please don't delete. Rgds Sue Wallace 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - the new text looks a lot more complete than the old one, in addition to being quite distinct! But don't forget to
cite your sources! --Alvestrand 05:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
User RPD
So what does one do about ihis obvious POV edits? The section is ridiculous, maybe it speaks for itself. E4mmacro
I think we need to de-hype his stuff. As long as it says "CJB says/others say", it speaks for itself, but I don't think we can let the "it's obviously true that <falsehood>" remarks stand. If it's CJB, he will no doubt try to re-hype - so we should be prepared for that. --Alvestrand 09:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]